I don’t know about if the particular officer involved with the Hydrocodone got off easy in this case, but I think the Garrity privilege is a reasonable way to balance the interests of society in being able to get rid of bad cops and the rights of cops not to incriminate themselves.

Basically what it boils down to is that if a police officer is ordered to incriminate himself, those statement’s can’t be used to prosecute him criminally, but they can be used by the department to fire or otherwise discipline him. It is possible to have two independent teams investigating an officer – one of which has access to the Garrity material and could fire him and another that does not that would look into filing criminal charges.

End result being, I’d rather get rid of more bad cops, even if that means some don’t go to jail.

The Department of Justice will now be ordering all Americans to take a whiff of oxytocin before listening to all political speeches. Speeches by Ron Paul are exempt of course because we all know he’s a lying, anti-American dirt bag and no amount of drugs can make America trust him.

I’m a Paramedic. We usually carry several schedule two drugs, including valium and morphine. Valium is used to control seizures, while morphine is used to control pain. Currently, we have neither because of nation wide shortages of both drugs. The drug we are now using for seizure control has nasty side effects, and isn’t particularly effective. We have fentanyl for pain control, but people who are allergic to that drug simply have to suffer. Also, fentanyl isn’t useful when treating cardiac chest pain. Thanks, DEA for the stupid production controls.

As for sniffing oxytocin: why on earth would I want to be an extrovert?

This is going to be kind of long, so I apologize in advance, but I couldn’t find a better place to put it. First off, I’m totally computer illiterate, so when everybody said how bad SOPA and PIPA would be, I just figured Congress isn’t real bright, either, and they just didn’t think this through. But since this has come up, more and more people are writing about other horrible proposed legislation, and I’m beginning to wonder if there is something more going on. Here is a real short version of a couple of blogs:

January 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm PZ Myers
Along with SOPA and PIPA, our government is contemplating another acronym with deplorable consequences for the free dissemination of information: RWA, the Research Works Act. This is a bill to, it says, “ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector”, where the important phrase is “private sector” — it’s purpose is to guarantee that for-profit corporations retain control over the publication of scientific information… This is a blatant attempt to invalidate the NIH’s requirement that taxpayer-funded research be made publicly available. The internet was initially developed to allow researchers to easily share information…and that’s precisely the function this bill is intended to cripple.

Topic started on 21-1-2012 @ 08:40 PM by Vitchilo
Threatening New Bill H.R. 1981 – Worse than SOPA/PIPA – This Bill Entitled “The Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011” Is A Bill With Overly Broadened Language That Greatly Threatens All of Us.
A better name for the child pornography bill would be The Encouragement of Blackmail by Law Enforcement Act. At issue is how to catch child pornographers. It’s too hard now, say the bill’s backers, and I can sympathize. It’s their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you’ve been assigned.
Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American.” Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it.
I kid you not — that’s it.
As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn’t require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history — being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information.

So, is anyone keeping an eye on these things? (Obviously some people are, but I don’t think most people have heard of them.) And why are they all being proposed now?

#4 | Nick42 | “Basically what it boils down to is that if a police officer is ordered to incriminate himself, those statement’s can’t be used to prosecute him criminally, but they can be used by the department to fire or otherwise discipline him.”

Wouldn’t a simpler rule be that cops are free to refuse to testify about their actions on the job, but one of the duties of a police officer is to answer questions related such issues; refusal to answer such questions should not be a criminal offense, but should be grounds for dismissal.

To be fair, one of the reasons Gawker and others were being snarky about Rand Paul is that the Senator was on his way to endorse a movement that calls for a massive government intervention into the uteri of women. It’s tough to be sympathetic to a guy being hassled by a government agency when he is on his way to demand that government agencies be allowed to harass and restrict an entire gender.

Except for that giant block quote I put which highlighted where Read went on a general tirade against libertarianism.

And I am not keen on March for Life, but I wish pro-choicers would recognize there’s some gray area in the life issue and that pro-lifers would remember the woman is there, too, not just the fetus.

But it’s not the same thing. There are plenty of other, unrelated objections to the TSA. Paul is not a homophobic preacher caught sniffing coke off a rent boy. I don’t get where the self-righteous satisfaction came from on Gawker’s part.

Jeez! That poor Matthew Stewart. Not only are they seeking the death penalty, but an additional eight years on his sentence. Which comes first? Death or time? And no, I don’t mean to be joking. It is like so many (99.9%?) of these a totally travesty of justice.

And the cop in Cleveland Tenn., who was snorting hydrocodone who was “so addicted to them.” Why was he “addicted”? Maybe because he was in pain? And he admitted to sometimes taking an extra pill or too, it looks like. Who of us hasn’t taken an extra pill from a prescription because it might hlep faster. (except for me. I of course follow the instructions printed on the label 100%) Or quit taking medicine prescribed for an infection early, because it (infection) seemed to be gone?

His super apparently never noticed any un-good-cop-like behavior. Except for the one domestic. And heck, any sober cop will do that every so often.

“Wouldn’t a simpler rule be that cops are free to refuse to testify about their actions on the job, but one of the duties of a police officer is to answer questions related such issues; refusal to answer such questions should not be a criminal offense, but should be grounds for dismissal.”

that IS the rule, essentially. garrity basically says that a cop must answer questions, and answer them truthfully , that it can be used against him internally but not in a criminal trial.

he is of course free not to answer. but that’s an instant firing. refusal IS grounds for firing. it’s automatic

a lot of times, when there is strong suspicion of criminal activity, they will hold off on the garrity etc. completely and wait for the criminal trial to play out, while putting the ofc on leave

that way, everything that came out in the criminal trial can be used administratively, and even suppressed evidence can usually be used internally too

THEN, even if found not guilty, they can garrity him. if anything he says conflicts with what he said at trial (assuming he testified) , that’s an instant firing, plus they have the “ammo” to ask much better questions

it also eliminates possibility of the chinese wall being breached between the internal and criminal trial.

since in this case, there was no criminal trial, it wasn’t an issue

fwiw, it doesn’t sound like he got any special treatment in not being charged

at least in my jurisdiction, even assuming the admission he used hydrocodone in his cruiser, that is not (usually) a crime

relating to my state’s laws at least

1) using a drug is not illegal. ever. possession is, though (and if he had a script, that wouldn’t be an issue) (in SOME states, it is illegal to merely have opioids (unprescribed) in your system, iirc. i think CA has such a law. but those are rare)

otoh, it sounds like he admitted to gettign them from a friend, which WOULD be unlawful possession, but there is no corpus delicti, really, since there is no physical proof of that particular offense. even finding the pills, since he already had a script there is no connection to those particular pills, etc.

“To be fair, one of the reasons Gawker and others were being snarky about Rand Paul is that the Senator was on his way to endorse a movement that calls for a massive government intervention into the uteri of women. It’s tough to be sympathetic to a guy being hassled by a government agency when he is on his way to demand that government agencies be allowed to harass and restrict an entire gender”

i’m pro choice, but this argument is not a winner for me. abortion isn’t merely about the privacy of a woman’s uterus (roe v wade aside). there is a third entity present – the fetus

iow, if one believes that the fetus’ “right to live” overrides a woman’s right to abort it, then it’s not about the invasion into the uteri of women, unless there is a third party there (granted, not a personhood party, but still A party with unique DNA and a unique, albeit … dependant life)

imo, libertarians should accept that pro-life is not inconsistent with libertarianism. it’s a balancing test

i am prochoice ON DEMAND abortions in first trimester

i certainly don’t agree with on demand abortion in third trimester, or for the “health” (iow mental health) of the mother, but certainly if her physical safety was endangered

pro-choicers tend to frame it as solely about the woman’s body. it’s not. it’s about HER body, and the dependant organism within

drug use, otoh, should be legal for libertarians because the state clearly has no authority to tell people what they can or can’t put in their bloodstream (or uterus if they were inventive)

if rand paul was for restriction of birth control, or premarital sex, or something like that, clearly that would be inconsistent with libertarianism, but as long as there is a third party in the uterus, unable to speak for itself, trying to protect that party IS consistent with libertarianism. i can respect it, despite being solidly pro-choice

I think what we need is a publicly searchable, detailed database of names, accusations, etc. that tracks political hypocrisy. That way all Reason needs to do is go there and type “Gawker (or Mother Jones), Read, TSA” to get a whole list of the ways that Gawker has been hypocritical on TSA when Obama loses and they suddenly start going “ZOMG TSA IZ TEH FASCIST RAWWWRRRRR”

To be fair, one of the reasons Gawker and others were being snarky about Rand Paul is that the Senator was on his way to endorse a movement that calls for a massive government intervention into the uteri of women.

If you believe a fetus is a child, it’s no more about freedom and autonomy than it is about property rights and privacy when a husband wants to murder his wife for any reason in the “privacy of his own home.” You may disagree with us on the nature of what is developing in a woman’s womb, but if you are completely incapable of seeing that we have a legitimate disagreement that just means you are solipsistic in your thinking.

Garrity sort of worked in cases like Johannes Mehserle. He hadn’t thought of the I-thought-it-was-my-taser defense yet (and was running around saying he thought Grant had a gun until the vids started surfacing). Because Mehserle hadn’t thought of his over story yet, he had to resign from his department. Of course, it should be noted that they waited far, far too long to threaten to Garrity-question Mehserle (should have been done the night of the shooting and with Mehserle held incommunicado (including no lawyer) until Garrity questioning had taken place. Despite these Garrity abues in the Mehserle case, this is how the system “works” — he did have to resign (and his cock and bull story told informally by him to other policemen after the shooting was inadmissible in his trial despite the fat that it was glaringly inconsistent with his mistaken-Taser defense).

My point:

Garrity barely works in a case where a police officer shoots a face down, hands behind back guy on video. Who even needs Garrity i a situation like this? Mehserle simply should have been arrested on the morning of 1 Jan 2009 and told that he had the right to remain silent whilst sitting in his jail cell. Plenty of probable cause for that arrest. No Garrity violation in proceeding in that manner in the Mehserle case, but they didn’t do it. Because of conflict of interest reasons, of course.

There are “less guilty” situations where it is appealing to think that Garrity would work and that the policeman will be fired, but not face criminal charges. For example, Lt. Pike comes to mind as someone who should be fired, but (perhaps) not prosecuted for gratuitous assault above and beyond the call of duty. He won’t be. Garrity never, ever works in these situations. The policeman may or may not be prosecuted criminally, but he will never be fired, and he will never be fired in situations where people would tend to feel that criminal prosecution is not warranted.

Garrity could be fixed. Garrity questioning could be handed to the public defender’s office (by law, the police won’t do that voluntarily). Simple fix. Perfect solution. Probably ain’t gonna happen politically, but one never knows. The publi defender’s office would do the Garrity questioning in a manner adverse to the popo, WITHOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Of course this is exactly why police would resist my proposal if they ever caught wind of it.

As things stand, Garrity is te problem not the solution. It is spiritually akin to the exclusionary rule. Cops love to piss and moan about these things, but in reality they are the policemen’s good friends and the overwhelming majority of police know this secretly.

–he will never be fired in situations where people would tend to feel that criminal prosecution is not warranted [b]absent some really, really good video and audio[/b]–

Policemen do get fired for misconduct. One got fired in Canton Ohio last week, basically for threatening, in inappropriate anger, to kill a suspect. But it wasn’t Garrity that made this firing happen (the firing ocurred way too late in the day to have been a product Garrity questioning and/or threatened Garrity questioning). Rather, it was video and audio recordings that got released to the public somehow.

You may disagree with us on the nature of what is developing in a woman’s womb, but if you are completely incapable of seeing that we have a legitimate disagreement that just means you are solipsistic in your thinking

When the anti-abortion crowd stops listening to barely educated professional speakers (bible college, wtf?!?) and starts listening to actual developmental biologists about the differences between eggs, sperm, a fetus, and a human, i’ll take your legitimate disagreement seriously.

As it stands now though, the mainstream anti-abortion crowd is a spiritual movement – and spiritual arguments are a dime a dozen.

I don’t get where the self-righteous satisfaction came from on Gawker’s part.

Self-righteous Gawker is self-righteous. There are a few articles/writers that aren’t, but the vast majority (IMO) are.

One got fired in Canton Ohio last week, basically for threatening, in inappropriate anger, to kill a suspect.

What if it had been “appropriate” anger? So infuriating. These are criminal acts. Not just something that gets you terminated. In almost every one of these cases lengthy reviews are conducted with the union (and badge-lickers in tow) attack the city to get re-instated or a check. What a sweet, sweet ride.

@27 – ‘Fetus’ is a stage of development, like ‘infant’ or ‘adolescent’ or ‘adult’. It’s just as much a human being as the other three. A human sperm merges with a human egg to make a human zygote which develops into a human fetus, and ultimately on to human adulthood. At every stage, from conception to adulthood, it’s human. A living, growing, unique human being. What the hell else could it be – a frog?

How effing hard is that to understand? Nothing ‘spiritual’ about it.

The time-honored tactic of reducing your victims to sub or non human status facilitates mass murder in war – and abortion.

What if it had been “appropriate” anger? So infuriating. These are criminal acts. Not just something that gets you terminated. In almost every one of these cases lengthy reviews are conducted with the union (and badge-lickers in tow) attack the city to get re-instated or a check. What a sweet, sweet ride.

You can watch the video and see what you think. These situations are always a matter of degree, and this was farr from the worst verbal abuse I have seen given the totality of the circumstances (eg, threat to kill sounded semi-serious at best). Even I, Burgers Allday, did not want to see the policeman arrested or jailed (at least not if the police had responded by quickly terminating the guy after they saw the video, but long before I did (as they should have). And I pretty much always want to see the policeman arrested at the scene (see Johannes Mehserle rant above). Not to excuse Canton. Their oversight was lax (in the pre-video-release period). They also should have fired the officer’s partner for some stuf he did in the video. Still, quibbles are these. Basically all is well that ends well. But this was due to the release of the video to the public (specifically a gun rights organization) and had nothing to do with Garrity — Garrity questioning simply didn’t enter into it because no one in the Canton PD cared until the vid got youtubed. Then suddenly they did and moved relatively quickly after that to fire him.

“Garrity sort of worked in cases like Johannes Mehserle. He hadn’t thought of the I-thought-it-was-my-taser defense yet (and was running around saying he thought Grant had a gun until the vids started surfacing). Because Mehserle hadn’t thought of his over story yet, he had to resign from his department. Of course, it should be noted that they waited far, far too long to threaten to Garrity-question Mehserle (should have been done the night of the shooting and with Mehserle held incommunicado (including no lawyer) until Garrity questioning had taken place”

in some jurisdictions (by law) and/or dept’s (by contract), they CANNOT question the officer (garrity him) within X hours of the incident, or at least not unless he consents.

so, you don’t know if they waited too long or not, since you don’t know (nor do i) how long they were or weren’t mandated to wait. remember, this is an administrative/internal thing that is subject to collective bargaining agreements and/or laws relevant to it

“Policemen do get fired for misconduct. One got fired in Canton Ohio last week, basically for threatening, in inappropriate anger, to kill a suspect. But it wasn’t Garrity that made this firing happen (the firing ocurred way too late in the day to have been a product Garrity questioning and/or threatened Garrity questioning). Rather, it was video and audio recordings that got released to the public somehow.”

that may be true in that case, but if you are implying that it takes video of an incident to get a cop fired, that’s simply laughable. i work for a decent sized agency, and i know several officers who have been fired, and only one case in the last few years involved video (to support a firing). i also know of two cases where video helped exonerate officers accused of wrongdoing.

i support as much videoing as possible, because it helps protect good officers from false complaints, it helps the truth come out, it helps punish those who make false complaints, and it incentivizes people (and espeically cops) to behave better

win/win/win/win

just as some examples, one officer was fired for repeatedly not turning in reports, another was fired for coming to work and repeatedly driving with a suspended license (he had been arrested for DUI, pled guilty and not advised the dept. he was not obligated to inform the dept of the arrest, but he was obligated not to drive iwht the suspended license), three got fired for excessive force (one was rehired after an arbitrator, correctly imo based onthe arbitrator report i read – determined that it was an unjust firing w/o due process), etc.

feel free to go to your local decent sized PD and request via FOIA sustained complaint info. you will see tons of cases of officers being disciplined and/or fired w/o the need for video

“What if it had been “appropriate” anger? So infuriating. These are criminal acts. Not just something that gets you terminated. In almost every one of these cases lengthy reviews are conducted with the union (and badge-lickers in tow) attack the city to get re-instated or a check. What a sweet, sweet ride.”

under “true threat” standards, etc. not every threat IS a crime, and many are either so de minimus and/;or don’t meet true threat standards, that they would never be prosecuted, cop or not

i have gone to literally scores of neighbor type disturbances, for example, where one neighbor threatens to beat the shit out of the other neighbor etc. usually over some stupid property dispute or something equally stupid like overgrowth of brush or whatever

VERY rarely , in fact, probably less than 1/50 would somebody ever get charged for these “threats” despite the fact that they were threats of bodily harm, said in anger, etc.

it’s a much more grey area, and much more of a burden than many other crimes, to prove.

i’ve personally testified in a case of witness intimadation/threats that got a scumbag a solid 5 yr sentence, too. it’s very dependant on case facts.

but it’s reality that whether it’s a criminal threat, or just smack talk, is dependant on a host of factors and just because somebody (whether he’;s a cop or not) says “i’m going to kick your ass” or some such, that does not mean it’s criminally actionable

“You can watch the video and see what you think. These situations are always a matter of degree, and this was farr from the worst verbal abuse I have seen given the totality of the circumstances (eg, threat to kill sounded semi-serious at best). Even I, Burgers Allday, did not want to see the policeman arrested or jailed (at least not if the police had responded by quickly terminating the guy after they saw the video, but long before I did (as they should have). And I pretty much always want to see the policeman arrested at the scene (see Johannes Mehserle rant above). Not to excuse Canton. Their oversight was lax (in the pre-video-release period). They also should have fired the officer’s partner for some stuf he did in the video. Still, quibbles are these. Basically all is well that ends well. But this was due to the release of the video to the public (specifically a gun rights organization) and had nothing to do with Garrity — Garrity questioning simply didn’t enter into it because no one in the Canton PD cared until the vid got youtubed. Then suddenly they did and moved relatively quickly after that to fire him.”

generally speaking, i wouldn’t support a firing of an officer based on some sort of threat, said in the heat of anger. most agencies, mine included, work on a progressive discipline basis. if this was the first incident of this sort, certainly not a firing, but if the behavior continued progressive discipline could result in firing.

people say shit in anger. cops aint perfect, nor do i think we should require perfection such that a cop losing his temper and makign threats should automatically result in firing, without knowign further facts regarding past history, etc.

i work with a guy who got 5 days for slapping a kid in the face (no injuries, but definitely a solid slap deserving punishment) about 10 yrs ago. since then, i’m aware of no instances of misconduct, and it would have been ridiculous imo to fire him for that incident. the kid was being a punk and trying everything possible to goad the officer , but the officer had the duty to be a professional, he failed, he was justly punished, and he never did anything else of the sort again, not even a single allegation of anything like that.

maybe i differ from some people here, but i don’t think you cancel a good cop’s career for a transgression like that. punish? yes. and if he did it again, i could guarantee he’d be fired.

As it stands now though, the mainstream anti-abortion crowd is a spiritual movement – and spiritual arguments are a dime a dozen.

The closest thing I’ve been able to come up with as a “compromise” between the two halves of the abortion argument is to apply the standard of death to the fetus to determine if it is “alive” and a person.

That is, does it have a brain wave and a heartbeat? The standard used to determine death could also determine when life begins. That seems completely NON-“spiritual”, as best I can tell.

Just for the record, that time would be pretty close to the end of the first trimester.

Omar, if that’s not enough to convince you it’s not a spiritual issue, then you are arguing in bad faith.

Case #1: Conservatives see OWS protesters get the shit kicked out of them by the cops, and laugh and tell them to stop bitching, because they don’t like the protesters’ politics.

Case #2: Liberals see Rand Paul get hassled by the TSA, and laugh and tell him to stop bitching, because they don’t like his politics.

What’s the difference between these two cases? Seems to me both cases involve people convincing themselves to love the boot on their own neck, so long as they’re pretty sure the boot on their enemies’ necks is pressing down harder.

i saw very few examples of OWS getting the shit kicked out of them. i saw plenty of examples of justified force used.

there were exceptions, but the youtube videos are all over the place, there were scores of thousands of protesters, lots of cops, tons of confrontations, a metric assload of cell phone cameras, and few examples of excessive police force

the UC davis episode, that LOOKED horrible turned out to be anything but, ONCE the entire video was released.

in fact, it was completely justified.

the most egregious thing i saw vis a vis OWS were certain politicians (e.g. the mayor of oakland) facilitating criminal behavior BECAUSE they agreed with the MESSAGE of OWS.

that is the grossest injustice – giving special treatment to CERTAIN protesters because you agree with their messages. it incentivized lawlessnes, etc. which was what the oakland OWS responded with, in great #’s, and massive vandalism, barricades erected after lawful orders were given to disperse etc. with plenty o’ warning.

compare and contrast OWS with tea party protests. the latter CLEANED up after themselves, sought permits, and generally acted lawfully

and were criticized for god forbid, carrying guns (legally) etc.

OWS covered up sex assaults, had TONS of crimes associated with their actions, and whined when (largely) justified force was used.

in some jurisdictions (by law) and/or dept’s (by contract), they CANNOT question the officer (garrity him) within X hours of the incident, or at least not unless he consents.

yes. I know. This is a problem related to Garrity. I terefore term it a Garrity-related-problem.

It is not the worst Garrity-related-problem, but it is a Garrity-related problems.

My previous post was not to give a comprehensive list of all Garrity-related problems. My point was to show that bad, and unrecognized-as-problems, Garrity problems do exist and that means that Garrity is bad and not good, as it has worked out in practice.

Frankly, everything I said in this-here post should have gone without saying. This ain’t roket science, Dunphy. Not going to address the rest of your points. Not bringing the debate at a high enuf level. Hate to sound elitist, but you really do need to pik it up.

however, you are full of it. you said this: “Of course, it should be noted that they waited far, far too long to threaten to Garrity-question Mehserle (should have been done the night of the shooting and with Mehserle held incommunicado (including no lawyer) until Garrity questioning had taken place”

which is why you are full of it. you said that they waited far too long to garrity, and i am saying how do you know? they MAY have been procedurally and/or legally proscribed from garrity questioning UNTIL a certain point of time. you are saying it was an error, and i am saying that depends on what the relevant law/contract says about how long they are required to wait

i find the idea that garrity questioning be conducted by the public defender as about as ridiculous as it being conducted by the prosecutor office

the POINT of garrity questioning relates to – was there a violation of dept. policy, etc. why the hell would you want a public defender, whose job is to defend people accused of crimes, to engage in an administrative internal investigation of a PD. it doesn’t even make sense

defense attorneys are NOT police management. they are not the enemy either. they are merely people hired to defend suspects, and ensure their rights are respected in trial, and ultimately their goal is to get a client freed, whether or not they did the offense. that’s a job completely unreleated to the purpose of garrity

GENERALLY SPEAKING, when it appears criminal law violations may have occurred by an officer you do NOT WANT to do garrity questioning AT ALL. it is almost always preferable to wait for the criminal side to play out, for a # of reasons

personally, i could not care less about the exclusionary rule. it excludes evidence, unlawfully obtained. my job is not to prosecute, nor to gather evidence of guilt. a cop’s job is to investigate and gather evidence, whether exculpatory or incriminatory. exclusionary rule doesn’t hurt me (a cop)… it hurts the victim of the crime, and society, but not me.